This is my `fleshed out' response to an anonymous comment on my post "Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (3)." I have improved the poor English of the comment.
>I'm confused, I heard it was made by a bas-relief metal sculpture heated but I'm not sure could some one elaborate because I'm on the verge of accepting authenticity but the bas-relief theory seems somewhat credible. 
"bas relief ... A French term from the Italian basso-relievo ("low relief"), bas relief is a sculpture technique in which figures and/or other design elements are just barely more prominent than the (overall flat) background. Bas relief is created either by carving away material (wood, stone, ivory, jade, etc.) or adding material to the top of an otherwise smooth surface (say, strips of clay to stone). This is a technique as old as humankind's artistic explorations, and is closely related to high relief." ("bas relief," Shelley Esaak, About.com: Art History).On that definition, "bas-relief" is a misnomer for the Shroud image, because the latter is double-sided, front and back and a bas-relief is a single-sided flat surface, upon which relief is built up. What really is (or should be) meant by "bas-relief" in the context of attempting to explain, or duplicate, the Shroud image, is "statue."
In this post I am going to concentrate on the `hot statue scorch' rather that the `cold powder rubbing' method of using a statue or `bas-relief' to recreate the Shroud image because: a) there is no powder (or dye, pigment or paint) on the Shroud in sufficient quantity to account for its image:
"Unfortunately, Mueller, Nickell, and others who have jumped onto the McCrone bandwagon seem blissfully unaware that for purely technical reasons the painting theory, regardless of the methodology, is a dead issue. Amazingly enough they continue to flog away at the now rotting carcass of this long dead horse. Nickell, for example, touts a dusting/rubbing method which obviously would leave a heavy distribution of chemicals between the fibers of the cloth and on its reverse side. Body paintings and rubbings invariably contain pigment layers and distortion in three-dimensional projection, all of which are absent on the Shroud." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," 1990, p.30);
and b) the commenter asked me about "a bas-relief metal sculpture heated" (my emphasis).
Here, are some problems of a hot statue/bas relief being used in creating the Shroud of Turin image:
1. The medieval, or earlier, forger first had to create the statue in stone or metal, with anatomical precision which was unknown until hundreds of years after the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in the mid-1350s:
"Even so the `hot statue' theory suffers from the serious problem that it demands the existence, back in the fourteenth century, of a life-size, anatomically convincing and totally nude statue of a recumbent Jesus, made in metal, that someone managed to heat to just the right temperature and manipulate so that a fourteen-foot length of linen could be wrapped all round it." (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud," 1998, pp.203-204).
2. Such a statue would be one of the world's greatest artwork in its own right, yet there is no record of it having existed:
"Where is the statue or the bas-relief that the artist used? It would have graced the finest cathedral and become a famous image in its own right." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud," 1981, p.109).
3. The forger could run off multiple copies of the Shroud from the stone or metal statue, and make a lot of money, but there is only one copy of the Shroud:
"An artist who was good enough to create an image as impressive as the Shroud's would surely have made many copies of it. Shroud copies of this level of artistry would have demanded a king's ransom." (Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.109).
4. The blood was on the Shroud linen before the image, so the forger would have to place the blood-stained linen over a hot statue, which would cook the blood:
"Microscopic and ultraviolet examinations of the Shroud indicate that the blood images were transferred to the cloth before the body image. If the body image were encoded through contact with a hot surface, thermal discoloration or degradation of bloodied fibrils would be evident because the blood images would have been in direct contact with the bas-relief heated to temperatures high enough to scorch linen. Indeed, this effect appeared in the experimental testing of this technique. Microscopic study of the bloodstains on the Shroud, however, reveals no thermal discoloration or fusing (except in areas where the fire marks of 1532 intersected bloodstains)." (Antonacci, M., "Resurrection of the Shroud," 2000, p.79).
"The many characteristics of the blood and serum marks also could not be reproduced with a draped hot statue. In particular, the blood marks would undergo thermal degradation as a result of their contact with a hot surface." (Antonacci, 2000, p.79).
5. The blood clots are intact on the Shroud, so the forger could not have smeared the clots as he placed the blood-stained linen shroud over a hot statue nor when he separated the linen sheet from the statue:
"The second sign of the resurrection on the Shroud concerns the body's removal from the cloth. The facts militate against the body being removed from the Shroud by any human means because the bloodstains are intact. As we saw earlier, each bloodstain is characterized by anatomical correctness, including precisely outlined borders, with blood clots intact. If the cloth had been removed from the body, the blood clots would have smeared or broken. This precludes any separation of the body from the cloth by normal means. A moment's reflection will reveal some of the medical reasoning here. When the linen was wrapped lengthwise around Jesus' body, it contacted the shed blood flowing from the head, the open chest wound, and the left wrist, feet, and elsewhere. As the blood dried, the linen would have become loosely attached to the wounds. Removing the Shroud, however carefully, would require both the removal of blood clots and the disturbing of the edges of the bloodstains. Since this did not happen with the Shroud, we may assert the probability that the body left the cloth in some way other than normal unwrapping of the Shroud. The contact bloodstains indicate that the body was not moved, rewrapped, of unwrapped. " (Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.156).
"The Man of the Shroud separated perfectly from the Shroud, with a technic which has left the imprints of blood clots on the fabric without leaving smears or streaks of blood, as would have happened if the clots had been moist, and without flaking or impairing these clots as would have happened if they had been dry." (Zeuli, T., "Jesus Christ is the Man of the Shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, Vol. 3, No. 10, March 1984, pp.32-33).
6. A hot statue would burn through the linen cloth but the Shroud image is extremely superficial, being only on the topmost fibrils, to a depth of only one-fifth of one thousandth of a millimetre (0.0002 mm):
"Even though the heated bas-relief produced better three-dimensional information than other methods, Jackson and colleagues concluded that this process could not encode many of the necessary Shroud image characteristics. For example, regardless of the temperature of the bas-relief, thermal discoloration appeared on the back side of the test cloth within several seconds after being placed on the hot bas-relief. Thus, the superficiality characteristic is violated because the image could not be encoded only on the topmost fibrils of the linen." (Antonacci, 2000, pp.78-79).
"Furthermore, the hot statue technique would scorch the image into multiple layers of the linen's threads, which means the image could not be superficial and confined to only the topmost fibrils of the cloth." (Antonacci, 2000, p.79).
7. A hot statue/bas relief would burn through, or scorch with a darker colour, the linen at high density contact points (e.g. the nose, hands, and feet):
"We turned once more to heat. A hot bas-relief - of all the models measured by the physicists - gave some distance information, but it was seriously flawed. When the bas-relief was hot enough to cause the recessed areas to show on linen, the hot spots, like the tip of the nose, burned through the cloth. Considering the heat conductivity of linen - wet or dry - the mechanism did not work." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," 1983, p.211).
"Another objection to the hot statue method lies in the inevitable creation of `hot spots' or well-defined regions of enhanced image density at points where the statue touched the cloth. Such spots would necessarily result from thermal conduction, yet no such regions are present on the Shroud body image ... the entire image contains the same density of coloration." (Antonacci, 2000, p.79).
8. A hot statue scorch, like all heat scorches on linen, would fluoresce under ultraviolet light (as the scorches on the Shroud from the 1532 fire do), but the image on the Shroud does not fluoresce:
"Another popular concept has been that, instead of a body, a lifesize statue or relief was employed. Prior to 1978 there was considerable interest in the Shroud body image's similarity to the scorches from the 1532 fire. It was theorized that someone in the Middle Ages had produced the Shroud's delicate gradations by wrapping the cloth around a heated metal statue, the linen receiving scorches proportionately more intense according to the cloth's distance from any one part of the hot statue. Cogent as this idea might seem ... scorches fluoresce under ultraviolet light, and while the Shroud's scorches from the 1532 fire indeed do so, the body image does not." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," 1986, p.66).
"Further contradicting any such `scorch' theory is the fact that the STURP team's ultraviolet fluorescence photography of 1978 revealed that whereas the cloth's scorches from the 1532 fire fluoresce red when irradiated with ultraviolet light, the body images do not. This argues strongly against the Shroud's body image having been created in some conventional scorch-like manner." (Wilson, 1998, p.204).
9. A scorch from a hot statue does not convey accurate three-dimensional information to the cloth it scorches:
"In short, though none of the Shroud opponents would willingly concede this point, the three-dimensional effect is the Waterloo for all artistic theories. That same effect has been scientifically demonstrated and subjected to the best peer review. And it still stands. Also, this same characteristic proves to be the acid test for all the image formation theories Dr. Jackson tried regardless of how well they met or failed to meet the other known Shroud image characteristics. A catalog of ruled-out theories includes the following: direct contact, diffusion, lab-induced radiation from a body shape, engraving, powdered bas-reliefs, electrostatic imaging, phosphorescent statues, hot statues or hot bas-reliefs." (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.33. My emphasis).
Heated Bas-Relief/Scorch Theory Another possible image-forming mechanism similar to that proposed by Nickell involves pressing a stretched cloth over a heated bas-relief ... This theory is more intriguing than most because the Shroud image does appear to have many of the physical and chemical properties of a light scorch ... sharp focus found on the Shroud. While the bas-relief method seemingly yields a respectable three-dimensional image, problems are evident in the accompanying VP-8 relief of this image. Hollow spots below the eyes, next to the bridge of the nose, below the lips, in the beard, and on the forehead are all noticeable in figure. Further, a slight plateau is visible on the high spots of the VP-8 relief, similar to those produced in VP-8 analysis of results from experiments with direct-contact methods." (Antonacci, 2000, pp.77-78. Emphasis original).
10. A scorch from a hot statue/bas-relief would produce a blurred image, not the sharp, high-resolution image on the Shroud:
"Hot Statue Method Just as the heated bas-relief method cannot account for all the Shroud image characteristics, neither can the hot statue technique, which involves laying cloth over a full-size three-dimensional hot statue. A hot statue would produce an isotropic radiation source, which means the heat radiates the same in all directions. This type of uniform radiation could not produce the subtle cloth-drape distortions found on the Shroud because the distance information encoded onto the cloth would not be transferred along vertical, straight-line paths; instead, the heat would travel in all directions and produce a blurred image." (Antonacci, 2000, p.79. Emphasis original).
"Techniques other than painting have been proposed. One idea is that the scorchlike effect was created by heating a life-size metal statue and wrapping the cloth around it. But the end result, once again, is a distorted and bloated image." (Picknett, L. & Prince, C., "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History," 2006, p.77).
Note that the last mentioned criticism of the "heating a life-size metal statue and wrapping the cloth around it" method was by two Shroud anti-authenticists!
There is a simple way to prove that the Shroud image was created by a bas-relief/hot statue method-replicate the full Shroud image, front and back, complete with bloodstains, using that method:
a. Make a metal or stone statue with the anatomical precision of the Shroud image (now that we have that anatomical knowledge unavailable in the 14th century), complete with over 100 accurate whip marks from a Roman flagrum, flower images, etc;
b. Apply anatomically correct arterial and venous blood (now that we have that knowledge of blood circulation since Harvey discovered it in the 1620s) to a ~4.4 x 1.1 metre linen cloth;
c. Heat the statue by burning coal, wood, charcoal or oil (since electric heating was unknown in the 14th century) to the correct uniform temperature (otherwise the scorch won't be uniform as the image is on the Shroud);
d. Envelop the hot statue with the bloodstained ~4.4 x 1.1 metre linen cloth, front and back, almost instantaneously so no part of the cloth receives more heat than the other (otherwise the scorch won't be uniform as the image is on the Shroud), without smearing the blood;
e. Ensure that the scorch does not fluoresce under ultraviolet light (which was unknown in the 14th century), as the Shroud's image doesn't, even though all heat scorches on linen do fluoresce under ultraviolet light;
f. Remove the cloth from the statue almost instantaneously so that no part of the cloth receives more heat than the other (otherwise the scorch won't be uniform as the image is on the Shroud), and before the scorch penetrates deeper than the topmost flax linen fibrils, but without breaking the blood clots adhering to both the statue and the linen cloth.
Clearly this cannot be done today, even though we have the Shroud as a model, let alone by a medieval or earlier forger who didn't, and therefore the hot statue/bas-relief theory is yet another failed naturalistic theory of how the Shroud's image was formed.
Posted 3 March 2021. Updated 16 December 2023.
Nice Post, This should finally put an end to this ridiculous theory, Another point is that the image pixels are actually discontinous or half-tone as well! So tell me how a Bas-Relief Statue will do that
ReplyDeleteC
C
ReplyDelete>Nice Post, This should finally put an end to this ridiculous theory,
It should but it won't. To a true believer in Naturalism (i.e. nature is all there is: there is no supernatural), a false naturalistic theory is always to be preferred over a true supernatural theory!
>Another point is that the image pixels are actually discontinous or half-tone as well!
Yes, the image is actually digital (as the word "pixel" implies) because it derives its shades of colour from the number of scorched fibrils, not from variations in the colour itself.
>So tell me how a Bas-Relief Statue will do that
But it is not clear to me that a hot statue theorist could not argue that a hot statue scorch would create its image on linen by the number of scorched fibrils. So I won't add this to my already too-long blog post.
But thanks for the point, which had not occurred to me at the time I wrote the above post.
Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Each individual will usually be allowed only one comment under each post. Since I no longer debate, any response by me will usually be only once to each individual under each post.
Thanks for the reply, I've heard the old retired argument that the "Forger could have smeared the blood on later" but this is illogical because they would need a constant supply of fresh clots and the fact of lack of capillary action kind of impliles the blood came on first. Thanks to your post and C and Joe's commets i no longer believe the incredulous Bas-relief theory.
ReplyDelete( Original Anonymous who was confused)
Reading this now, though it definitely seems to be a response to all that commotion going on over at Dan's blog.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous
ReplyDelete>Thanks for the reply, I've heard the old retired argument that the "Forger could have smeared the blood on later"
This argument fails because there is no image underneath the bloodstains.
Which would be the case if the Shroud was Jesus' and the blood was the result of His flogging, crowning with thorns, crucifixion with nails and spearing in the side on Friday; and the image was caused by His subsequent resurrection on Sunday.
>but this is illogical because they would need a constant supply of fresh clots and the fact of lack of capillary action kind of impliles the blood came on first.
No doubt those who claim the blood was added later could invent ad hoc explanations of what an ingenious medieval forger might have done.
But the `killer' argument against the blood added later theory is that there is no blood over the image, i.e. no image under the blood.
This can be readily explained, as the ENEA report did, that the blood absorbed the ultraviolet radiation emitted from Jesus body as He was resurrected:
"Beneath the stains of blood is no image. This means that the traces of blood have been filed before image. So the image formed at a later deposition of the corpse. ... The UV and VUV light colored linen that is compatible with the absence of staining in the blood stains of the Shroud (hemoglobin in thin blood absorbs UV and VUV light)" (ENEA Report, Google translation, pp.10 & 22).
>Thanks to your post and C and Joe's commets i no longer believe the incredulous Bas-relief theory. (Original Anonymous who was confused)
Great to hear that!
Remember that most (if not all) the Internet critics of the Shroud, own and have read few (if any) books on the Shroud. Those of us who have actually taken the time, trouble and treasure to buy and read the Shroud literature (both pro- and anti-authenticist) know that these Internet critics' arguments, while sounding convincing to the less well-informed, are like the Shroud image - extremely superficial!
Stephen E. Jones
phyzics
ReplyDelete>Reading this now, though it definitely seems to be a response to all that commotion going on over at Dan's blog.
Well, it's not! Now the school term has started and I am back at work as a relief (substitute, supply) teacher I only have the time and inclination to read Dan's posts, not comments to his posts. Also Dan seems to have blocked me commenting on his blog because I disagreed with him.
As I wrote, I was responding to an Anonymous comment under my post "Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (3)":
"I'm confused, i heard it was made by a Bas-relief metl sculpture heated but i'm not sure could some one elaborate because i'm on the verge of accepting authenticity but the bas-relef theory seems somewhat credible."
I will freely admit that from reading Dan's posts, I am aware that the method of a heated bas-relief/statue is being touted by ScienceBod/ColinB, as an explanation of the Shroud's image, so that was defintely a factor in me responding to that anonymous commenter on my blog in a detailed separate post.
But I was interested in the topic anyway and I deliberately avoided mentioning Dan's blog or SB/CB in my post above, because: a) I now don't read comments on Dan's blog (nor have I ever read SB/CB's blog or website-whatever it is he has); and b) I don't want my blog to become a vehicle for responding to other blogs in general and Dan's blog in particular.
Stephen E. Jones
One more point before moving on from this ridiculous theory, Petrus Soons possible discovery of a rope-like Structure at the wrists of the Shroud--Man (if discovered) totally discredit the Bas-Relief theory because a heated statue can not imprint an intact image of a Rope-like Structure? Can be found at Shroud3d.com however even Dr.Soons feels this needs more research.
ReplyDeleteC
Stephen,
ReplyDeleteI was more or less thinking out loud (and I had been curious if you had known/what you thought of Colin's theory). Either way, totally understandable, though that's too bad about what happened with Dan. Hope all is well!
C
ReplyDelete>... Petrus Soons possible discovery of a rope-like Structure at the wrists of the Shroud--Man (if discovered) totally discredit the Bas-Relief theory because a heated statue can not imprint an intact image of a Rope-like Structure? ... Dr.Soons feels this needs more research.
Apart from the existence of a rope image not being certain, a proponent of the hot statue method could claim that the medieval forger built the images into his statue or added them later.
In my above post I wrote:
"a. Make a metal or stone statue ... complete with ... flower images, etc;"
I only included "flower images" because at least one large flower can be seen near the head of the Man on the Shroud, even on the Internet.
So the presence of addtitional items on the Shroud is not an actual disproof of the hot statue theory, but they are extra problems for it.
For any forgery theory, it is hard enough believing that a medieval forger would go to the immense, but unnecessary and even counterproductive, trouble, of forging the back side of a naked Jesus, complete with over a 100 Roman flagrum whip marks that are so accurate that it can be worked out there were two scourgers, one taller than the other:
"Authenticity is stamped all over this enigmatic relic, which just goes on springing surprise after surprise at its mysterious perfection from year to year. The impressive matching of the scourge-marks with the pattern of two soldiers administering the flogging, one either side, one taller than the other: the angle of the bloodflows on the forearm, mathematically exact for crucifixion: the dimensions of the side-wound, and its emission of both blood and water: the stupendous witness of the wounds (in total verisimilitude) caused by the spiky cap: all these features of the Shroud-Man and many more compel us to admit the harmonious integrity of this unfakeable image." (McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, 1978, p.36).
A front only bas-relief would be more than enough in that gullible medieval era.
Stephen E. Jones
phyzics
ReplyDelete>I was more or less thinking out loud (and I had been curious if you had known/what you thought of Colin's theory).
Sorry if I took your commet in a way that you did not intend.
But it gave me the opportunity to clarify that I was not directing my comments specifically at ScienceBod/Colin B.
One reason I didn't (apart from I hadn't read his claims directly, but only what is in Dan's posts) is that I would be obliged to give SB/CB a right of reply.
SB/CB is not banned from commenting here but he quit in a huff (calling me "a boil on the bum of the blogosphere" which made my day!), when he tried to post a long, multi-part comment and I let him only post the first part, reminding him of my policy of usually only one comment per person under each post, to avoid me having to become embroiled in an extensive, time-wasting debate.
Stephen E. Jones
How sure are we that there is no image under the blood? and How sure are we that the blood does not show signs of the shroud being pulled for the body?
ReplyDeleteIf these two are infact FACTS, they speak very highly to the Shroud being authentic, basically indisputable evidence.
Thanks.
>SB/CB is not banned from commenting here but he quit in a huff (calling me "a boil on the bum of the blogosphere"
ReplyDeleteSciencebod has today (13 March 2012) responded with a comment, which included:
-----------------------------------
Goodbye, good riddance. You ARE a boil on the bum of the blogosphere..
-----------------------------------
I marked his comment as SPAM, which presumably means that Blogger won't show me any comments from him again. If so, in effect, Sciencebod is now banned from commenting on my blog.
Dan Porter had also only yesterday decided to "limit Colin Berry’s participation in this [Dan's] blog" because of his "insults as substitutes for substance" and "I don’t want to lose good people because of Colin."
But CB/SB is not actually banned from commenting here on my blog, if Blogger allows his messages to appear (I am not sure how Blogger's SPAM marking system works) and anyway he could presumably post here as Anonymous.
The only requirement I have is in my long-standing Policy which applies to all commenters (see below), i.e. be on-topic, not be offensive or otherwise sub-standard, and usually only one comment per post, to avoid me having to waste my time on fruitless debate.
Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Each individual will usually be allowed only one comment under each post. Since I no longer debate, any response by me will usually be only once to each individual under each post.
You have no business reporting me as spam. I shall give you 24 hours to withdraw that misrepresentation, here on your site where everyone can see it, failing which I shall lodge a strong protest with Blogger Blogspot, charging you with serious defamation of character.
ReplyDeleteColin Berry (posted as 'anonymous' to ensure you read this and take heed).
Although I don't agree with most of his views on the shroud or the manner of some of his comments, Dr.Colin Berry nonetheless has been an interesting skeptic of the shroud and have found his blogs provocative. He almost made me challenge the authenticity of the Shroud but in turn i found the evidence indisputable that its real shroud from Jesus formed at his ressurection. The Shroud helped me a 14 year old boy renew his faith in Christ and a greater love for him, In closing i will say a farewell to Colin and Kudos on his experiments
ReplyDeleteC
Anonymous
ReplyDelete>How sure are we that there is no image under the blood?
I can only quote what scientists, who examined the Shroud in microscopic detail, have reported, e.g.:
"Whenever one fiber crossed another, the yellow was cut off, and the fiber beneath was white." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," 1983, p.152).
>and How sure are we that the blood does not show signs of the shroud being pulled for the body?
See the quotes in the post above.
>If these two are infact FACTS, they speak very highly to the Shroud being authentic, basically indisputable evidence.
Agreed. The problem is that no one on the Shroud anti-authenticist side, comprehensively deals with all the evidence, including these two facts:
1) there is no image under the bloodstains (so a forger would have to apply the blood first and then paint or scorch around the blood which would be artistically absurd and in practice impossible); and
2) the blood clots are intact (which effectively rules out any forgery method where the cloth has to contact the body or statue).
Stephen E. Jones
Anonymous
ReplyDelete>You have no business reporting me as spam.
This is from Colin Berry (see below) which shows (as I thought-see previous comment) that he could still post here as Anonymous
>I shall give you 24 hours to withdraw that misrepresentation, here on your site where everyone can see it, failing which I shall lodge a strong protest with Blogger Blogspot, charging you with serious defamation of character.
And I will show them your two comments, which I kept, defaming me as a "a boil on the bum of the blogosphere"!
But of course you are just bluffing (i.e. LYING) Colin. Go and read the legal definition of "defamation of character" and you will find it must be: 1) a false (or true but malicious) statement about another's CHARACTER; and 2) be PUBLISHED to others.
But I made no statement about your character, I merely privately marked as spam one of your comments, describing me again "as a boil on the bum of the blogosphere".
>Colin Berry (posted as 'anonymous' to ensure you read this and take heed).
I'm quaking in my boots (if I had any on, but it is 5:35 AM and I am sitting here barefoot in my pyjamas)!
Colin, as I said in my comment above, you can still comment here as Anonymous, provided you adhere to my policy for all commenters:
1. be on topic (the comment should be about my post it is under - not attempting to hijack my blog to make it effectively your blog);
2. don't be gratuitously offensive; and
3. comment usually only once under each post, so I don't have to waste my time on fruitless debates.
Stephen E. Jones
I have not spammed your site - I have criticized the way you respond to a comment, and then deny one the right to a reply.
ReplyDeleteYou should not need me to tell you that spam has a highly specific meaning where internet sites are concerned. Accounts can get summarily deleted if one is reported as a sender of spam.
So once again I say - withdraw the false charge that I have spammed your site. If my account is blocked on account of it, then you risk repercussions on your own - rest assured I will see to that.
Colin Berry
C
ReplyDelete>Although I don't agree with most of his views on the shroud or the manner of some of his comments,
It is only "the manner of some of his comments" that I have a problem with, not that Colin B argues that the Shroud is a fake.
>Dr.Colin Berry nonetheless has been an interesting skeptic of the shroud and have found his blogs provocative.
I have not had the time to read Colin B's blogs or comments directly, only what Dan Porter posts about them. But I give him credit for at least attempting to argue for the Shroud's inauthenticity.
>He almost made me challenge the authenticity of the Shroud
A clever sceptics can cause those who believe the Shroud is authentic but who don't have a strong enough knowledge base to back up their belief to doubt, and maybe even abandon their belief in the Shroud's authenticity.
And no doubt they help confirm others in their anti-authenticity position and prevent others from accepting the Shroud is authentic.
>but in turn i found the evidence indisputable that its real shroud from Jesus formed at his ressurection.
Great! That is an advantage of Shroud skeptics. Their arguments are usually lacking any real substance and they can help those like yourself who believe the Shroud to be authentic, to strengthen their belief.
>The Shroud helped me a 14 year old boy renew his faith in Christ and a greater love for him,
Praise Him whose image is on the Shroud!
>In closing i will say a farewell to Colin and Kudos on his experiments
Colin can still post comments here as Anonymous (see above or below depending on where Blogger puts this my comment), but like everyone else, he has to abide by my stated policies.
Stephen E. Jones
sciencebod
ReplyDelete>I have not spammed your site - I have criticized the way you respond to a comment, and then deny one the right to a reply.
You twice called me "a boil on the bum of the blogosphere"! The second time was a spam in my book.
And I am not denying you "the right to a reply". Apart from the fact that Blogger let this comment through shows that messages from Sciencebod can still get past Blogger's spam detection system, you can still comment here as Anonymous.
All I am requiring you to do is what I require of other commenters to my blogs, stay within my stated policies, which includes no "offensive" comments.
>You should not need me to tell you that spam has a highly specific meaning where internet sites are concerned.
I don't post spam so I don't know (or care) what the Internet definition of it is. As far as I am concerned, the second time you called me "a boil on the bum of the blogosphere" was spam by MY definition.
>Accounts can get summarily deleted if one is reported as a sender of spam.
Then you better take more responsibility of what you post.
>So once again I say - withdraw the false charge that I have spammed your site.
It is NOT a false charge as far as I am concerned.
>If my account is blocked on account of it, then you risk repercussions on your own - rest assured I will see to that.
Instead of threatening those who merely try to defend themselves from your juvenile insults, how about growing up and starting to take responsibilty for what YOU write?
You have had more than one comment under this post, so further comments by you under it will not appear.
Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Each individual will usually be allowed only one comment under each post. Since I no longer debate, any response by me will usually be only once to each individual under each post.
>So once again I say - withdraw the false charge that I have spammed your site. If my account is blocked on account of it, then you risk repercussions on your own - rest assured I will see to that.
ReplyDeleteIn the unlikely event that Sciencebod/Colin Berry's Blogger account was blocked because of my marking as spam a second post from him describing me as "a boil on the bum of the blogosphere", it will be Google who did it:
-----------------------------------
Blogger
Report a spam blog
Help us to make Blogger and Blog*Spot spam-free by reporting spam blogs below. Please submit each blog only once. While we don't reply to individual reports, we will review every submission as soon as possible and take action as necessary.
©2012 Google
-----------------------------------
Because as Google says above, it reviews every spam submission and it takes action as it deems necessary.
So if Google deemed it necessary that Sciencebod/Colin's Blogger account was blocked,any action by him would be against Google, not me.
Stephen E. Jones
Hi Stephen, I can't find your E-Mail on the blog/your profile so I'm posting this here: Have you/will you posted a refutation of "The Shroud of Turin: The Great Gothic Art Fraud"? Here is a link to it: http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article815.html. Most of the article is garbage that has been completely destroyed between new findings, but their remarks on the proportionality of the man on the Shroud I lack a good response to. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteGio
ReplyDelete>Have you/will you posted a refutation of "The Shroud of Turin: The Great Gothic Art Fraud"?
No, and I don't intend to. The article's key statement:
----------------------------------
Although suspiciously tall, the total height and weight of the shroud figure are not abnormal. The dimensions of the head are. It has long been noted that the body is overly long relative to the head. Joe Nickell pointed this out in his 1998 Inquest into the shroud of Turin. The disparity is readily visible once one is aware of the incongruity. It has been less noted, however, that this is primarily because the head is too small in height as well as width—the cranium being quite narrow relative to its height—both in absolute terms, and even more so relative to the body. Deleting some hair atop the head and trimming off the end of the short beard, the height of the head is about 225 mm (8.85 in). The width is only some 130 mm (5.1 in). In normally proportioned adult males the body height is 7-7.5 times greater than the height of the head. The total height of a person with such a short head should be 1575-1688 mm (5.2-5.5 ft)—a short stature even for Gospel times that should have been noted in the Gospel accounts. In the shroud the total/head height ratio is an abnormal 8.3. This exceeds even the remarkably high 7.9-8.0 ratio of Abraham Lincoln (measured from the only full figure photograph taken before he grew a beard). In most adult males the head is in the area of 245 mm (9.6 in) tall and 150 mm (5.9 in) across. These values apply to Lincoln. Judging from frontal photo portraits, his cranium was not unusually narrow. The President had a normally large head despite his high body/head height ratio because, at 1920 mm (6.3 ft), he was so tall.
----------------------------------
is based on a fallacy: that the Shroud is a conventional photograph or painting, in which all of the head, including its sides, would be represented. But the sides of the head and body of the Man on the Shroud are not represented. And Jackson's Cloth Collapse theory (see his "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image") explains why.
Apart from that, common-sense would indicate that if the Shroud was a forgery, then it was the work of a great artistic genius, at least the equal of Leonardo da Vinci. Yet these type of criticism's, e.g. `the body is too tall'; `the head is too small', etc, would have us believe the forger committed a major blunder of head-body proportion that even an ordinary artist would mot make.
Stephen E. Jones
Colin Berry (aka Sciencebod) sent a comment (actually 3 times the same comment) which I deleted, according to my long-standing stated policy:
ReplyDelete---------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Each individual will usually be allowed only one comment under each post. Since I no longer debate (see below), any response by me will usually be only once to each individual under each post.
---------------------------------
Colin's comment was deleted on three grounds. First, it criticised my policy of only allowing one comment under each post, because I want to avoid the endless debates that many Internet debaters (including Colin) enjoy but I, after a decade (1994-2005) of it, no longer do, and I took up blogging to get away from it.
If anyone, friend or foes, refuses to abide by my blog's stated policies, then they need not waste their time commenting on my blog. Because I WILL delete their comments.
Second, Colin personally attacked me. That comes under the policy of "offensive ... will not appear."
Third, Colin tried to introduce a separate topic with a link to his blog. That comes under the policy of "off-topic ... will not appear."
Colin/Sciencebod can still comment here (despite me marking as "spam" one of his comments which was abusive of me) but if his (or anyone's) comments to my blog do not abide by my stated policies, they will not appear.
The following 2004 quote perfectly encapsulates my attitude towards comments by others to my blog, as opposed to posts by others to my now closed Yahoo discussion group:
----------------------------------
"What are the Differences Between Message Boards and Weblogs? Posted by: leelefever on August 23, 2004... Responses Weblogs and Message Boards both allow for responses from the community- new topics can be responded-to by others. Weblog topics have comments and message board topics have replies. This subtle difference in syntax reveals a difference in the roles. The word comment for weblogs implies that the author does not need further participation to reach a goal- comment if you want. Reply, on the other hand, implies that participation is explicitly requested by the poster. A discussion is not a discussion without a reply.
----------------------------------
Stephen E. Jones
The image is SEPIA in colour. Sepia ink comes from the cuttlefish.It is used in art and photography.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous
ReplyDelete>The image is SEPIA in colour.
"Sepia" is just ONE of the colours that those who have seen it first-hand (I haven't) try to describe it as. Ian Wilson, who has seen the Shroud many times, under different light conditions, says the Shroud's colour ranges "from straw-yellow to sepia ... depending on the prevailing light conditions":
"Yet another of the surprises arising from viewing the Shroud directly rather than via a photograph is discovering just how pale and subtle the two body imprints appear. First-hand assessments of their colouring range from straw-yellow to sepia, much depending on the prevailing light conditions." (Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," p.7).
>Sepia ink comes from the cuttlefish.It is used in art and photography.
Thanks for the information. I didn't know (or had forgotten) that.
But if you are claiming that the Shroud's image IS sepia ink, then that is FALSE. The Shroud of Turin Project (STURP) found that "the body image is made up of yellowed surface fibrils of the linen that are at more advanced stages of degradation than the non-image linen. ... no evidence was found in the body image of any added substances [such as ink, paint, dye, etc] that could have contributed to the yellow colour of the fibrils that form the image:
"A recent volume of the American Chemical Society, ACS Advances in Chemistry no. 205, Archaeological Chemistry III, ed. Joseph B. Lambert, 1984, contains no less than four papers of considerable relevance to Shroud studies: E.J. Jumper, A.D. Adler, J.P. Jackson, S.F. Pellicori, J.H. Heller & J.R. Druzik `A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin' This thirty page paper represents by far the best appraisal so far of STURP's 1978 testing, and is particularly valuable for its discussion of the Shroud's various stains and images. According to the abstract [p.447]: `The conclusions are that the body image is made up of yellowed surface fibrils of the linen that are at more advanced stages of degradation than the non-image linen. The chromophore is a conjugated carbonyl. No evidence was found in the body image of any added substances that could have contributed to the yellow colour of the fibrils that form the image. The blood images on the cloth are made of blood. The data, taken together, do not support the hypothesis that the images on the Shroud are due to an artist.'" (Wilson, I., 1984, "Some recent publications," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 8, October, p.7)
Stephen E. Jones
---------------------------------
Reader, if you like this my The Shroud of Turin blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase its Google PageRank number and so enable those who are Google searching on "the Shroud of Turin" to more readily discover my blog. Thanks.
Steve Calovich
ReplyDelete>I posted a comment under "side strip" on your blog. I wanted you to see how Thierry Castex determined the hair color on the Shroud. See the pertinent part below:
I deleted your comment, which consisted mainly of a long quote from another source.
I have usually deleted such comments previously, because if I allowed them, and they continued, it would in effect turn my blog into other individuals' blog, where THEY would be posting and I would be commenting!
As I have stated before, I started this MY blog, for ME to post, and for others to comment if they wish on MY posts.
See above, fortuitously, the quote in my comment above: "What are the Differences Between Message Boards and Weblogs?" which explains that my blog is a BLOG not a discussion group.
Also I have stated in the past that I regard comments that are mostly a quote of someone else, as substandard (see Policies below). Comments should be mostly in a commenter's own words, so that THEY have to do some thinking about the issue, not requiring ME to do all the thinking for them.
Stephen E. Jones
----------------------------------
MY POLICIES Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.